Mid-tier Executive Leadership Blog

Thinking on Your Feet

People who can "think on their feet" are not necessarily any smarter than those who apparently cannot. We all know some folks who seem to be able to think at lightning speed in virtually any situation. Josh Kopelman comes to mind.

It turns out that Josh happens to be brilliant, but brilliance aside what he also does is fairly simple - and available to the rest of us. He allows himself to multi-task in his mind and has practiced retrieving information quickly. Leaders are expected to have answers, voice educated opinions and make quick decisions all the time. Sometimes we'd prefer to have more time to contemplate, but we don't always have that luxury.

Today's business environment moves very quickly. Everyone expects answers faster. Markets open and close in the blink of an eye. Reporters call or microphones get shoved into your face expecting a comment :-). We have to be able to think on our feet.

Communication skill is so fundamental to successful leadership that we'd be foolish not to work on it. You can train yourself to think more quickly when you need to. Here's one way:

Our brains think about thousands of different things at the same time. Fortunately we are also capable of pushing a lot of these cycles into the background, using our subconscious and/or "primitive" brain power, preventing too much distraction from the task at hand. People with ADD have difficulty pushing things to the background.

It has been suggested lately that we don't truly multi-task, rather we "time-slice". While that may be true, I think it applies more to thinking + tasks than to contemplation alone.

Try this: Jot down no more than three topics or questions that you'd like to figure out. Read these questions to yourself at least twice per day. Then, just before getting into bed, say them to yourself once more. If you can't remember them exactly, then bring your note with you and read them to yourself before falling asleep.

Do this for about a month and amazingly you will have harnessed a great deal of your sub-conscious brain power. Teaching yourself to use this extra processor in your head is nothing new, and it most certainly works. While we sleep, our brains categorize and file away information from the day, deciding which will require retrieval and which probably will not. The natural aging process creates breakdowns in this important activity – the information is still in there, we just decided that it wouldn't be needed again…oops.

What Josh and other extremely successful people have learned to do is to use more of their brains than the rest of us. They have natural talents, study, learn and work very hard too. But they also know how to mull over things while they're fully in the moment during their waking hours.

You don't have to use sleep to harness the power of background processing; you just have to plant the right seeds and practice. Using those same three questions you wrote down, read them a few times during your day and your mind will prioritize them for you. Anticipate questions, meetings, or important phone calls and your mind will start to think about them. Give it some specific things to think about, and your background processor will help you out. You'll be ready to think on your feet – and you'll get better at it.

It's tempting to let impulse guide us through our busy days, and some days we have no choice. But leaders with a large scope of responsibility and a hectic schedule need every bit of brain power they can get. Teaching yourself to use it all will make you a better communicator, which is the essence of effective leadership.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Got ROI?

We make investments every day, putting our time, our energy, or our attention to work with the purpose of getting some sort of return. If I do this, I'll get that. Or if I do this, someone else will get that.

Most of the time, these return calculations are instantaneous and even subconscious, but we still make them. Deliberate ROI calculations beg for quantifiable outcomes. If I sell 1,000 widgets at $10 each, and my profit margin is 30%, then I'll make $3,333 in gross profit.

But intangible, non-quantifiable components, unless perhaps you're a Physicist, inherently bring inexact returns. Let's use leadership development activities as an example.

If you pay one manager $100,000 per year and he's performing at about 80% effectiveness, you're wasting approximately $20,000, right? People are not robots; we're working with inexact calculations here. What would it take to get this manager up to 90% effectiveness? Should you spend $5,000 or $10,000 to get a positive return? Probably not and here's why: You lack the benefit of leverage.

One leader usually cannot, by himself, generate productivity increases that are ample enough to justify a substantial investment. The ROI is by nature limited by his scope of influence, control and responsibility. The solution is to leverage several leaders at the same time. First, you can gain efficiencies on the cost side, and second, you will realize exponential increases in productivity.

When just one manager improves, his staff becomes more productive. There's a modest gain there. But when you help three managers improve, their corresponding staffs become more productive, many of whom are likely to interact with one another. The cost to benefit ratio is accelerated by mutual dependencies, improved cooperation and better relationships. Your cost goes down and your ROI improves.

When you calculate the ROI of a leadership development initiative, don't forget to account for the increased intra-company leverage. Leadership never occurs in a vacuum and taking your organization forward will require a concerted effort among several leaders if you wish to gain efficiencies and maximize overall productivity.

Getcha Popcorn Ready

In the Philadelphia area (where my office is), and now also in Dallas, Terrell Owens is persona non grata to say the least. Among his many antics, he's infamous for coining the phrase, "getcha popcorn ready", referring to the excitement he was surely going to generate on the field…and we, his adoring fans, certainly didn't want to miss it!

Many of my colleagues, partners and competitors are getting their popcorn ready these days. Like autumn, the hint of an economic recovery is in the air. Ben Bernanke indicated that he expects a slow recovery, but all the same, a recovery is on the way. Should we believe him?

What have we got to lose by being cautiously optimistic?

A wise person said recently that things will never return to the old normal. The new normal will mean even leaner organizations, more careful spending and certainly more regulation and transparency. Politics aside, most would agree that we needed most of this stuff anyway.

But economic cycles come and go. This one is (was?) very deep and will have far reaching consequences. What's not different though, is the fact that many organizations laid off too many people and soon begin to scramble to hire enough people back to capitalize on new business opportunities that will accompany the recovery of 2010. It happens every time.

Why do they keep making the same mistake over and over?

Laying people off is a very dramatic signal to shareholders and analysts. When a company does a reduction in force, it's saying that it's dead serious about cutting costs and/or that things are in fact so dire that it has no other choice. But which is it? Are there unnecessary layoffs? To be sure there are. We've seen it AGAIN.

Just Watch

Get your popcorn ready for a slow and steady wave of hiring. Many companies will return to pre-recession headcounts. Did this exercise save them money in the end? Probably not. Did it win them loyalty in their job markets and communities? Nope. Did it make the surviving employees buckle down? That's arguable, but what is not arguable is the fact that layoffs are a major distraction.

So what we have now is pent-up turnover. Many people are just waiting for the job market to improve to get the heck out of where they are. A wise person (different wise person) also said that companies remember what you do for them in the bad times more than they remember what you do in the good times. I think that this may be true to a certain extent.

Dramatic layoffs coupled with unrealistic expectations and a lack of clear and honest communication is a recipe for delayed turnover. We don't have short term memories when it comes to life-altering events like job loss.

What should have happened? There should be a continual push to drive efficiency. Keep people fully utilized and cross-trained so that when times get tough they can be deployed almost anywhere to help keep the bottom line secure. Don't over-hire.

Allowing legions of people to sit on payroll adding little value, and then cutting a deep swath of jobs when times get tough is not sustainable over the long term. History shows that this practice, though popular, actually costs more in the long run.

We often hear that layoffs are a desperate measure of last resort. When profits are down, training and leadership development is often cut as an "unnecessary expense".

The reason this is a huge mistake is that when times get tougher, companies don't have people ready to step up and save the day. So they punt, lay people off, and everyone pays dearly. To watch them re-hire and train new people, getting back to pre-crunch headcount numbers, is common.

So, I say, 'get your popcorn ready'. The next wave is coming and unfortunately, due to the dumbfounding practices of cutting too deeply, the next down cycle is surely not too far behind. The best advice is to keep your skills sharp, your 401(k) funded and mobile, and your networks alive. We're all going to need them again and again.

Using Your Mute Button to Get Others Talking

Leaders communicate. We learn to be persuasive, precise and inspiring with our voices and keyboards. It's an essential skill, but there are times when keeping quiet serves an important purpose.

It's tempting to comment as often as possible when we have valuable information or a unique perspective to share. Everyone wants to add value and we feel obligated as leaders in our organizations to offer up what we bring to the table every chance we get.

But is this always the best strategy?

How many times have we come away from a meeting or conference call wondering why everyone was unusually quiet? Why didn't anyone have questions? When stakeholders remove themselves from an important debate, trouble is usually brewing right? Not always.

Resisting the temptation to steer conversations or manage agendas takes self-discipline. But it's vital, when time and circumstance permits, that we allow others to think through complex situations and help each other find the best possible solutions. We don't tolerate others who dominate discussions, why should we let ourselves get carried away?

You've probably found yourself in this situation: a regular meeting during which an unexpected issue comes to light and no one feels "safe" in voicing his opinion until yours has been registered. This may feel like a special privilege, but in fact it can restrain creativity and stifle healthy brainstorming. It's no sign of weakness to say, "Sure I have some thoughts, but why don't you start."

After brief hesitation and occasional glances to read your expressions, people will eventually open up. Of course, in any meeting, no one should be allowed to be disrespectful or manhandle an open discussion. There may be others who feel that they need to take over, since you seem unwilling to do so. Politely shut that down, encouraging everyone to add to the discussion.

It goes without saying that allowing a meeting to careen out of control and go into double-overtime is unacceptable. But if we use our mute button judiciously we begin to see gradual transformations. Natural leaders will reveal themselves. The group will develop more egalitarian norms. Buy-in for decisions made by the team for the team will get stronger.

Less is often more.

One Size Fits All?

I read that because Americans are getting bigger, clothing manufacturers have been adjusting their size designations. For example, a size 14 is now a size 10, which is supposed to help us feel better about being overweight…

This made me think about the leadership skill most often requested of our coaches: how to manage performance by giving good quality feedback. We all need feedback and in this case, one size DEFINITELY doesn't fit all.

Why do so many leaders avoid giving performance feedback? Some believe that it is unnecessary and others are just afraid of conflict. Just as bad, when a leader has become disconnected from his team members and therefore lacks good context, impersonal, generic feedback falls flat.

The trick is to figure out what motivates behavioral change in others. You do this by learning about each individual's work style, priorities and goals, and then tapping into them.

For example, when your bookkeeper aspires to become a CPA, you help her get to her goal faster by pointing out what a CPA would do. Talk about what's required of a CPA and then explain the need for her to master that behavior. For example, if your bookkeeper doesn't seem to keep up with the latest accounting rules, point out why that's important if she wants to become a CPA.

Showing others a connection between what they are doing (or need to do) and what they want, is an effective way of framing a feedback discussion.

Reinforcing positive behavior would appear to be easier than correcting problems, but some leaders don't even do that. Some feel that people, particularly more senior people, don't need positive reinforcement. That's simply not the case; and even here, one size doesn't fit all.

I once made the mistake of assuming that one of my staff would appreciate a shiny new nameplate on her desk. We had moved to a new office and everything else was modern and sleek. She had done a fantastic job getting the phones and computers reconnected and I wanted to recognize her excellent results. So I had a nice one made and couldn't wait to present it to her.

Saying something about the old worn out nameplate, I proudly placed the new one down and commented on how "fitting" it was. Well, had I known her better, I would have realized that the old worn out one had been made by one of her kids a number of years ago and she was quite attached to it!

Once size doesn't fit all. To figure out which size fits best, leaders need to have conversations and get to know their people. Assuming we know what motivates or recognizes others can be downright embarrassing if not totally ineffective. Making a habit of giving corrective as well as reinforcing feedback makes thing so much smoother and easier. Waiting until it becomes an "event" just makes it all the more awkward.

Applying billionaire thinking to establishing priorities

Most of us struggle with prioritization from time to time. Sometimes it's helpful to learn about the techniques that other successful people have used. Nightingale-Conant publishes the "AdvantEdge Newsletter" and this issue was certainly worth the read:

AdvantEdge Newsletter

Constructive Dissenters

The value in allowing dissenting opinions to be expressed cannot be underestimated. But managing a healthy debate can be tricky for some. Leaders never want to appear wishy-washy or weak in front of their teams. Not everyone is secure enough to welcome a challenging opinion in front of others.

But handling constructive dissenters well is a great way to build one's leadership brand. A constructive dissenter is someone who has the best interests of the organization at heart, but is not afraid to point out issues and problems with a leader's decisions. This is the opposite of a destructive consenter, a.k.a. a yes-person.

Do you squelch debate or entertain ideas worth discussing? How do you handle disrupters? Are people afraid to challenge you? Have you ever used a public debate as an opportunity to get a message across?

It's critical to acknowledge the dissenter respectfully and explore the topic in a pragmatic way. Always assume that dissenting opinions are offered for constructive purposes, and argue, if necessary, accordingly. Teaching early leaders how to appreciate the importance of dissenting opinions is an important senior leadership skill.

I read a very interesting book on this subject called, "Victims of Groupthink". It's an account of several pivotal times in U.S. history where Presidential Cabinet members all too quickly agreed with anything the current president said, afraid to express dissent even in the face of potentially catastrophic consequences. Leaders who squelch dissent fail to leverage the very brainpower they have hired – it makes no sense.

I've been hard on leadership at GM lately, in my blog and the Preston Leadership Best Practices newsletter. Disagreement is essential, and quite ironically Alfred P. Sloan encouraged healthy debate at GM, but what happened? Recent leadership squelched it.

How Women are Redefining Work and Success

From BusinessWeek (06/01/09) Vol. 4133, No. 66, Shipman, Claire; Kay, Katty

The presence of women--especially senior women--in the workplace often equals higher revenues, finds several recent surveys on the subject, including one by Catalyst.

With more than 75 percent of U.S. couples being dual-earners, the need for flexibility for working mothers is much greater, yet organizations are finding that men also desire the flexibility to spend more time with family. This chain reaction set off by the acceptance and appreciation of women as valuable workforce leaders is producing a number of policy changes in corporations around the country.

One high-profile example is Brenda Barnes, former CEO of PepsiCo's North American operation, who received much criticism after leaving the position more than a decade ago to raise her three children. With her children now grown, Barnes returned to the corporate sphere as the CEO of Sara Lee, where she has been since 2004.

The present business environment necessitates flexibility and the opportunity to attain work-life balance, says Barnes. This balance does not translate into less work; rather, "it means empowering employees to do their work on a schedule that works for them."

Companies must recognize that work can be completed at different times and locations other than the office, and Barnes believes this type of flexibility "offers employees the ability to manage and balance their own careers and lives, which improves productivity and employee morale."

Are You Involving?

Benjamin Franklin said, "Tell me and I forget. Teach me and I remember. Involve me and I learn."

Talking at people really doesn't influence them, get their buy-in, or help them understand things any better. In fact, research shows that most of us tune out after about 10 minutes! Leaders can improve the effectiveness of their messages by involving their listeners.

How?

Start by speaking more slowly and asking questions. Listen, and lead an exchange of knowledge, perspective and experience.

Speaking to groups of people doesn't have to be a lecture. Pictures and video can be very involving. U2 used video in a very compelling way during their Vertigo concert tour.

Thousands of people who may never have thought about it learned that there are important causes in far off places that they wanted to do something about. And they responded in droves. Bono is a leader.

Leadership is all about influence. When others have the opportunity to get involved in solutions, they do their very best to see them through to success. Simply asking, "what do you think?" isn't enough. Follow up with "why?" and explain your decision-making process.

One measure of a leader's success is how well she develops those who report to her. In order to do that successfully, leaders should focus on developing the right thought processes. What to consider? Who are the stakeholders? What have we learned from past experience?

It's surprising how many of us know how to go through the motions but fail to actually think. Teach others to think and they'll truly learn.

It's tempting to shield our staff from some of the pressures we experience. That's why leaders get the big bucks, right? It's a noble motive, but in doing so we're depriving others of critical opportunities to fully learn how to think. This is why simulators are so effective training tools; we get the feel for what it's actually like.

That's being involved – and only then does excellent learning happen.

What did you learn today?

"In a knowledge economy where skill is based on knowledge, and where technology and economy are likely to change fast . . . the only meaningful job security is the capacity to learn fast."

— Peter F. Drucker, The Age of Discontinuity

Once we stop learning, we may as well pack it in for the rocking chair. Ever meet someone who thinks he or she has it all figured out (besides teenagers)? Occasionally I come across leaders young and old who seem to feel this way. They are frustrating to work with to say the least.

The late Peter Drucker was indeed a visionary. His writings about knowledge workers are all coming true. Learning is not a "nice to have". We should be seeking opportunities to learn every single day, and not only at work but elsewhere too. If we are not open to learning new things, then we will inevitably get left behind. First we must open our minds to the idea of learning, then we need to improve our ability to learn fast. All it takes is self-confidence and a little practice.

Do you ask questions? Seriously, do you ask questions out of curiosity and a genuine interest in others and what they may be able to teach you? Anyone who knows my leadership development programs knows that I push the idea of asking questions a lot. Some leaders have a tendency to talk too much and are poor listeners. They treat listening like a chore. Have they got it all figured out? No one does.

I say read, ask questions, and try something you've never done before. Life is full of opportunities to learn and when it comes to work, as Drucker said, "…the only meaningful job security is the capacity to learn fast."